Why are there sets of words like this?
though/although
regardless/irregardless
flammable/inflammable
though/although
regardless/irregardless
flammable/inflammable
What is the difference between "though" and "although"?
- Thread starter Chiropteran
- Start date
meltdown75
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2004
- 37,548
- 7
- 81
Notice how "incorrect", "erroneous", "nonstandard", and "use regardless" are all displayed there? That's because it's used by failtards that don't know English and await death by chemical fires.
Can you read where it says "non-standard" in each of those definitions? Let me clarify for you what that means.
It means that the word exists for a singular group. That group is retards like you.
Although I didn't really want to click on this thread, I irregardlessly did and there is are flammable comments in here!
wut?
wut?
Your usage of "retards" is non-standard the exact same way. The word retard originally meant slow, and had nothing to do with people being dumb or mentally-retarded. Basically you are using a verb as a noun, and you make yourself look like an idiot because you do so while mocking the fact that irregardless is indeed a word.
Also from the link(s):
Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir- prefix and -less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.
Irregardless is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century, it has met with a blizzard of condemnation for being an improper yoking of irrespective and regardless and for the logical absurdity of combining the negative ir- prefix and -less suffix in a single term. Although one might reasonably argue that it is no different from words with redundant affixes like debone and unravel, it has been considered a blunder for decades and will probably continue to be so.
Right. The only time an educated person may even use such a nonstandard word is for a ridiculous emphasis, certainly not to post a thread asking what the difference between it and regardless is.
He seems pretty happy with failspeak though, so more power to him!
Not quite. The term is clinically known as mental retardation, and thus a person stricken with the unfortunate affliction is known as a retard.
Irregardless, however, is a non-word that is intended to supplant regardless with the same meaning. This is a completely useless endeavor and most of the time I hear it, it is uttered by people who don't know better, like yourself.
i think it might be a grammatical issue that changes the uses; however, i'm no english expert so take it with a grain of salt
though is the same as however
i like coke, though it is bad for you
although it is bad for you, i like coke
it just sounds right that way, not sure...check this out though: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/although
i think they can be used interchangeably...
irregardless is not a word.
flammable/inflammable:
?Synonyms 2. fiery, volatile, choleric.
?Usage note Inflammable and flammable both mean ?combustible.? Inflammable is the older by about 200 years. Flammable now has certain technical uses, particularly as a warning on vehicles carrying combustible materials, because of a belief that some might interpret the intensive prefix in- of inflammable as a negative prefix and thus think the word means ?noncombustible.? Inflammable is the word more usually used in nontechnical and figurative contexts: The speaker ignited the inflammable emotions of the crowd.
your google-foo is weak young one
though is the same as however
i like coke, though it is bad for you
although it is bad for you, i like coke
it just sounds right that way, not sure...check this out though: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/although
i think they can be used interchangeably...
irregardless is not a word.
flammable/inflammable:
?Synonyms 2. fiery, volatile, choleric.
?Usage note Inflammable and flammable both mean ?combustible.? Inflammable is the older by about 200 years. Flammable now has certain technical uses, particularly as a warning on vehicles carrying combustible materials, because of a belief that some might interpret the intensive prefix in- of inflammable as a negative prefix and thus think the word means ?noncombustible.? Inflammable is the word more usually used in nontechnical and figurative contexts: The speaker ignited the inflammable emotions of the crowd.
your google-foo is weak young one
Originally posted by: dNor
He seems pretty happy with failspeak though, so more power to him!
There you go again, you keep using non-words in your discussion about whether irregardless is word or not (which it is).
I never even used the word myself, but it fit the pattern of words I was thinking about so I listed it. However, just to piss you off I'm going to start using it.
BeauJangles
Lifer
- Aug 26, 2001
- 13,941
- 1
- 0
flammable and inflammable mean the same thing
Regardless and irregardless also mean the same thing, but as people have pointed out, irregardless isn't really a word. I think people got confused between regardless and irrespective and created it by accident.
Although and though mean the same thing, but though is considered informal.
jonks
Lifer
- Feb 7, 2005
- 13,918
- 20
- 81
Originally posted by: Chiropteran
Originally posted by: dNor
He seems pretty happy with failspeak though, so more power to him!
There you go again, you keep using non-words in your discussion about whether irregardless is word or not (which it is).
I never even used the word myself, but it fit the pattern of words I was thinking about so I listed it. However, just to piss you off I'm going to start using it.
You fail twice for contextual blindness. This is an internet forum, and I don't think dNor thinks "rofl" is a word either. There is no setting where irregardless will be considered proper by well spoken people. It's existence is now tolerated but only in favor with the uninformed.
*woosh*
That's unpossible.
Originally posted by: Chiropteran
Originally posted by: dNor
He seems pretty happy with failspeak though, so more power to him!
However, just to piss you off I'm going to start using it.
That's unpossible.
Only in slang. Look at the linguistics of what you are really doing.
A person is physically active.
Would you ever call such a person an "active"?
A person is ethically corrupt.
Would you ever call such a person a "corrupt"?
A person is mentally slow.
Would you ever call such a person a "slow"?
No. In every case, it makes you sound like an idiot if you try to use a verb as a noun.
A person is mentally retarded.
Would you ever call such a person a "retard"?
Yes, but only because it came into common usage. It's a slang word, it doesn't really make sense to use it as a noun, but because people have been saying it for the last 20 years it feels normal to use it that way.
Irregardless is the exact same. It started as slang, it doesn't make sense to use it as a word when regardless means the same thing, but because it has been in common usage it's recognized as a word.
BeauJangles
Lifer
- Aug 26, 2001
- 13,941
- 1
- 0
Originally posted by: Chiropteran
Originally posted by: dNor
He seems pretty happy with failspeak though, so more power to him!
There you go again, you keep using non-words in your discussion about whether irregardless is word or not (which it is).
I never even used the word myself, but it fit the pattern of words I was thinking about so I listed it. However, just to piss you off I'm going to start using it.
irregardless just has a horrible double-negative in it. Also it has NOT become a standard word in English, though we have seen increasing acceptance of its useage. I just glanced at the wikipedia page and it claims the word achieved some level of acceptance in the 1960s, but it still is not considered a real English word -- in other words, it's still slang.
Given the choice of saying regardless or irregardless I can't imagine why anybody would choose to use the word irregardless, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter